[bookmarkable]

Sickening? Really? Don't you find it interesting that currency free of nation-state regulators would be attacked as anti-environmental?

These same regulators would love to steer policy and public opinion by calling something that reduces their influence bad for the climate, even if such a thing is run on clean energy, solar, etc. That seems suspicious.

Beware of what -isms you are repeating and supporting - they are very likely aligned with other -isms you would not support, or are a root cause of the issue you care about in the first place. Environmentalism is no exception.

Overall, blockchain currency has the ability to help humanity. If that requires more power, well, so does everything. I'd focus on how to generate that power renewably, not to argue against a technology that millions in the unbanked world could use to better their situation. I'd suggest you learn more about the problems that present cryptocurrency as a potential solution before just listing new problems.

[jboog]

I've been hearing for almost a decade how Bitcoin was going to change the world and help humanity and yet...nothing. Other than some speculators and early adopters getting rich.

I've yet to hear of anything "world-changing" BTC could do that isn't already done better by traditional systems.

[SuoDuanDao]

BTC shouldn't be conceptualised as a killer app but a proof-of-concept. The world-changing thing the technology can do is eliminate graft, and I'm fine with it taking a while to get there.

Meantime, it's useful to keep track of who is most vocally against a technology that could eliminate graft.

[solosoyokaze]

For the past 10 years you could have kept your money in a savings account or Bitcoin. One of those has been decimated by a fiat printing press, the other has been a great investment.

Bitcoin has already changed humanity for the better and it's only getting started.

[qeternity]

> For the past 10 years you could have kept your money in a savings account or Bitcoin.

The classic false dichotomy by people peddling crypto. Nobody is keeping their money in a savings account. There are productive investments that aren't crypto.

[solosoyokaze]

What asset class has returned value like crypto for the past 10 years? None.

[qeternity]

Ok, is Bitcoin a super speculative investment, or a savings account? Now you're just moving goal posts.

Ironically, crypto's returns are all due to Tether...which is purely inflationary printing. USDT is what you'd get with the USD if the Fed were run by actual criminals.

Let's chat in a year.

[solosoyokaze]

It's not that it's a speculative investment, it's that the dollar is continuously plunging in value and taking everything tied to it down too.

BTC (and several other cryptos) are the only safe place to store money in the long term.

> Let's chat in a year.

Indeed. No one who's bet against crypto has come out looking prescient.

[jboog]

This is an asinine argument.

The risk profile of Crypto vs an index fund is exponentially worse.

What you should care about is what asset provides you the best return with the lowest risk.

At any time in history you can look back at the past ten years and say "Clearly X stock was the best choice for investors and you're foolish to claim otherwise!"

[throwaway829]

I’m pro crypto but this statement could of been made during the tulip mania. I think the better argument is being free from central bank devaluation of hard earned savings.

[adriancr]

Stock market... derivatives...

[solosoyokaze]

Not even close.

[jlmorton]

> One of those has been decimated by a fiat printing press, the other has been a great investment

How has the US dollar been destroyed? It has enjoyed remarkable price stability, very close to the target rate, which is what everyone expects and can plan for.

The other has seen astronomical, wild price swings, which no one could plan for, and while it's currently enjoying a high value (just as tulips once did), it was worth 95% less just 10 months ago - and probably will be again soon.

[solosoyokaze]

The dollar has absolutely been destroyed. Housing, health care... true inflation is rampant.

> The other has seen astronomical, wild price swings, which no one could plan for, and which is currently enjoying a high price (just as tulips once did), but which was worth 95% less just 10 months ago - and probably will be again soon.

People have been saying this at their own expense for a decade.

[jlmorton]

Housing costs are not high because the dollar has been debased. They're high because of high demand and lack of supply in many urban locations, primarily because of local zoning and permitting processes.

If housing were expensive because the dollar had lost value, then you would expect it to be cheap to buy a house in SF in some other form of currency. But it's not, no matter what medium of exchange you want to use, it's still expensive.

And there are of course lots of locations with significant supply where housing in the US is dirt cheap, like Detroit.

Health care is more complex, but the same general idea applies. Whether you pay in USD, or anything else, it's still expensive.

[solosoyokaze]

0% interest is definitely inflating the cost of housing.

> Whether you pay in USD, or anything else, it's still expensive.

> no matter what medium of exchange you want to use, it's still expensive.

Not if you hold BTC. It's unfortunate that people are self-sabotaging by keeping USD based assets when there's actually an alternative that's not in a inflationary spiral.

I think the BTC hate on this site is unique though. In the "real" world people are pretty excited about crypto and acting in their own best interest by acquiring it.

[ben-schaaf]

You can make the same claim for putting all your money in TSLA. Just because it has had good return in hinesight doesn't mean it wasn't an extremely high-risk investment.

[fchu]

Having great returns and improving humanity are very different things. I'm pretty sure a lot of scams are benefiting their creators very well, and yet...

[solosoyokaze]

Having great returns when the alternative is to let the government wipe out your savings, is actually a benefit to humanity.

[wtfrmyinitials]

If people can print money, they will.

[DeRock]

While not world changing, it did allow for the paying for of illicit drugs over the internet. Silkroad was the peak of bitcoin usability IMO (regardless of my moral perspective on the matter). Ever since, its slowly transitioned into a Ponzi scheme built on the back of future "decentralized finance" promises.

[tomc1985]

How is this a rebuttal to being accused of using more power than a substantially-sized country and offering little in return for it?

Like, at least the current fiat model actually works for most people.

[qeternity]

> Beware of what -isms you are repeating and supporting

> Overall, blockchain currency has the ability to help humanity. If that requires more power, well, so does everything.

You jump immediately into whataboutism: what about all the other things that require power.

Bitcoin is not beyond criticism. It is currently 99.99% used for speculation. Does it have potential? Absolutely. Do a number of competing non-PoW/non-blockchain based solutions also have potential? Yes. Do those competitors potentially use far less energy? Also yes.

In the best case, Bitcoin is using a metric shit-ton of energy before actually hitting critical mass for its social use-cases. In its worst case, its a Tether-backed ponzi that is siphoning a tremendous amount of energy from more productive uses.

[thatfrenchguy]

> These same regulators would love to steer policy and public opinion by calling something that reduces their influence bad for the climate, even if such a thing is run on clean energy, solar, etc. That seems suspicious.

This is textbook conspiracy theory here. Don't forget that even if bitcoin was running 100% on renewable energy (which it definitely is not), the added load on the grid definitely causes coal/gas plants to fire up and make the grid CO2 emissions of the country where people mine bitcoin to get worse.

I don't buy the decentralised argument either, more than 51% of the hashrate is in China and the government can decide to shut all of this down the day they want to reduce their unproductive CO2 emissions.

[simias]

Bitcoin is barely a currency. Its deflationary nature is the main reason it's been somewhat successful so far (because it rewards early adopters) but it's also be its demise (because nobody wants to spend a "currency" today that's by design going to be more valuable tomorrow).

Cryptocurrencies is what happens when libertarian techbros try do "disrupt" basic financial systems without taking the time to figure out how it's really working.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peaple saying that embracing bitcoin is going to create a fairest world for all are either deluded or trying to sell you something.

In 2017 hundreds of projects (be it premined coins or "ICOs") got literally billions of dollars for all sorts of revolutionary projects. What are the results? Where's the revolution? Why am I know posting on HN through the blockchain?

11 years on and still no use case besides pyramid schemes and buying drugs online. Great job folks.

[seibelj]

MakerDAO, Synthetix, Cosmos, Polkadot... all of these are working and did ICOs. Ethereum itself was an ICO. Crypto is wildly successful by any metric.